Wednesday, October 19, 2016

Third presidential debate

As a time capsule, a record of my live reactions to the third presidential debate, starting from the beginning and progressing through to the end. I use facebook instead of twitter because I can't multitask well enough to corral what I write into 140 characters or less while still paying attention to what's being said.


Hillary says we are going to "ask" the wealthy to "contribute". If I say "no", does that mean I don't have to pay any taxes?



Yes, Hillary, our foreign policy should definitely be determined by sad pictures of children.


"If she did nothing, we'd be in much better shape."

The truest statement made in any of the four presidential debates.


Questioning the integrity of the electoral results was risky in the extreme--and one of the reasons I admire Trump's candidacy so much. Just recently there were thousands of illegal registrations discovered in Virginia alone.

Virtually every time there is a recount conducted anywhere, the subsequent results differ from the original ones. Usually the differences are marginal and don't effect the outcome; occasionally they do. But the first run is never accurate. There's plenty of opportunity and incentive for foul play.

WikiLeaks reported that John Kerry made negotiation concessions to Ecuador in return for shutting up Julian Assange. If the federal government is bending US diplomacy to the purpose of getting Hillary elected, why shouldn't we assume that electoral fraud is at least on the table?


I remember hearing about how the Good Guys were fighting to take back Mosul a decade ago. It never ends. It never will until we extract ourselves from our futile, deadly nation-building enterprises in the world's tribalistic hellholes.


Trump takes the gloves off with men, too. Criticizing men is no big deal, but dare to criticize a woman and it's time to collectively clutch our skirts.

Hillary, if you want to act like a man then be prepared to be treated like a man. That's what feminism is all about, right?


Hillary would've more accurately said: "There's only one person on this stage who has created jobs."


The US foots well over half of NATO's effective budget. It's obsolete. The Cold War is over. We may need NATO, though, if Hillary is president, because that Cold War won't only be back on, it might get ignited into a Hot War.


Hillary tries to deflect to the source of WikiLeaks rather than the content of the leaks. If it sets off WWIII, well, when you want an omelet sometimes you have to crack a few eggs.


Ha, she wanted open borders for energy. Of course! There is simply no reason that kilowatts should have to be stopped-and-frisked as they cross the Rio Grande! Open borders for electricity of all kinds, no exceptions!


In Operation Wetback, for every one illegal immigrant the Eisenhower administration deported, 8 left on their own. The BS about long lines of busses is demagoguery of the worst order. It's quite simple--make it difficult to live in the country illegally and far fewer people will want to do it.


Hillary thinks it's absurd that every single illegal immigrant could potentially be subject to deportation.

We have a presidential candidate who is advocating that the top executive in the country should not enforce the nation's immigrations laws.


Roe v Wade should be overturned and abortion should be returned to the states.

That's a great rule of thumb for every "culture war" issue. Instead of fighting for 51% of the votes and then forcing the other 49% of the country to bend to your will, let's live-and-let-live to the extent that it is possible.


Once again Hillary makes no mention of the Constitution when asked about her appointment(s) to the Supreme Court other than to argue that the Senate should let Obama name Scalia's replacement. The court's exclusive function is to rule on the constitutionality of laws and the execution of those laws.

Tuesday, October 18, 2016

US government negotiates with Ecuador to swing the election to Hillary

I don't have anything particularly insightful to say here, but this can't be disseminated too widely.

Assuming it is credible--and WikiLeaks' record is impeccable--why wouldn't we assume electoral fraud is also in the works? We're looking at a situation where the Obama administration's state department has made negotiation concessions in an effort to influence the outcome of a domestic presidential election. Adding a few hundred thousand votes here and dropping a few hundred thousand there is hardly remarkable in comparison to that level of corruption.

Yes, votes are counted and electors 'assigned' at the state level. So what? The effort to stop Trump is a bipartisan effort motivating almost the entire political class. Remember Colorado? North Dakota? And those were solely Republican efforts to steal the election from Trump.

Crickets in the media, with a few honorable exceptions. The fourth estate has become the fourth pillar of the state.

Democracy isn't just the god that failed, it's dead--and our overlords have killed it.

Monday, October 17, 2016

Julian Assange, Occidental Hero--whether of the rearguard or vanguard yet to be determined

Julian Assange has been neutered. He's been suffering some sort of chronic pain in his right shoulder for months. This presumed warning shot hasn't dissuaded him from the steady drip-drip-drip of Clinton campaign emails.

Now it appears that under pressure from the US government, the Ecuadoran embassy in Britain--where Assange has been holed up for four years to avoid extradition--has cut off his internet access.

Shutting him up is preferable to assassinating him. The Cathedral doesn't want to make a martyr out of Assange. But WikiLeaks has contingency plans in place, so it's a false choice. The information is coming and Team Clinton can't stop it.

This is about more than the presidential election. The Cathedral thinks it has that in the bag, through a combination of rigged polls, voter fraud, electoral fraud, a bipartisan circling of the wagons, and the elevating of every accusation of misconduct by Trump on nothing other than the account of the person making the allegation while entirely ignoring the same when Hillary is the accused.

This is about the media lapdogs snuffing out the media watchdogs. WikiLeaks' record is squeaky clean. The organization has never presented an apocryphal document in its decade of existence, a record CNN, Fox News, the New York Times, or the Washington Post couldn't hope to match for a single week, let alone a ten years and counting.

Instead of diving into years' worth of free Christmas gifts in the form of the WikiLeaks' data dump, the lickspittle media lapdogs are lamely trying to scare the Dirt People away from it:

Major media bias is old hat, but it's remarkable just how overwhelming it has become. The Center for Public Integrity today released a review of campaign finance records showing that those listing their occupations as "journalist", "reporter", "news editor", or "television news anchor", have given over $380,000 to the Clinton campaign and less than $15,000 to the Trump campaign, a 96%-4% Clinton advantage over Trump among the line workers who create the Narrative's news.

That's small potatoes compared to the Clinton allies like Haim Saban, Jeff Bezos, and Carlos Slim, controllers of Univision, the Washington Post, and the New York Times, respectively.

Reported recently on CNN: "We have not heard such vociferous attacks on a presidential candidate since 1860." A cold civil war is here. A hot one may be coming.

Trump should continue to poison the well. There's no reason for restraint when it comes to accusations of cover-ups, fabrications, voter fraud, the rigged system, etc.

Nullification followed by secession is on the horizon.

Sunday, October 16, 2016

Trump, bring the angel moms to the third debate

Topics for the third presidential debate have been announced:
Wallace will ask questions about debt and entitlements, immigration, the economy, the Supreme Court, foreign hot spots and the candidates’ fitness to be president, according to an announcement made Wednesday by the Commission on Presidential Debates. Each of the six segments will last 15 minutes.
It's stunning that Team Clinton is permitting the subject of immigration to be discussed. Trump's restrictionism is more popular than he is, and Hillary's open borders are less popular than she is. Immigration is a populist issue she's extremely vulnerable on.

Trump should invite some of the "angel moms" to attend the debate and then during the segment on immigration point them out in the audience and demand Hillary apologize directly to them:

After she stumbles through a response--if the command doesn't trigger a seizure--Trump should link Hillary's Goldman Sachs speech calling for a "borderless world" to Bill Clinton's speech the day before 9/11 calling for exactly the same thing. Go into how for thirty years Hillary has been in a position to secure the border and get control of immigration but instead all she's done is made sure it stays wide open.

Outside of VDare's readership, Bill's call for a borderless world is virtually unknown. This is the perfect time to rectify that, knock Hillary on her ass, and let middle America see itself in the faces of the angel moms.

Saturday, October 15, 2016

Reuters-Ipsos polling suggests black and Hispanic (but not white) turnout will be down from 2012

On multiple occasions an anonymous commenter has pointed out the Trump campaign's missed opportunity with regards to registering unregistered white voters over the last year:
Trump has irretrievably squandered a priceless opportunity to register and mobilize the Missing 47 Million White Blue Collar people for a “mess of pottage” from GOPe agents.
The thought is that without additional white voters, Trump will have to do about 3 points better than Romney did among whites in 2012. Trump will have to get 62% of white support to win the popular vote.

While granting clemency to Paul Ryan after the primaries only to have the cuck later stab him 23 times looks like a mistake, that may not be the only path to a Trump victory (assuming minimal electoral fraud--an admittedly big and unwarranted assumption).

The Reuters-Ipsos' daily tracking poll has justifiably come under fire for rigging its surveys in Hillary's favor. It has oversampled Democrats and undersampled independents and to a lesser extent Republicans. It has also oversampled the well-educated and undersampled the modestly-educated. Its utility is an open question.

That said, it allows users to create and toggle cross-tabs across a whole slew of variables. Having done so, here's a reason to be cautiously optimistic: Turnout.

The turnout rate, by race, among eligible voters in 2012:

White -- 64%
Black -- 67%
Hispanic -- 48%

The percentages of registered voters who self-identify as "likely general election voters" in November in Reuters-Ipsos' daily tracking poll (running from 9/15 through 10/15), by race:

White -- 77%
Black -- 65%
Hispanic -- 37%

Comparing turnout among eligible voters and among registered voters isn't an apples-to-apples comparison. The pool of eligible voters is larger than the pool of registered voters, as all citizens aged 18 or older are eligible voters (excluding incarcerated felons) but not all eligible voters are registered to vote.

Consequently, we should expect the 2016 percentages to be higher across the board than the 2012 percentages are. While that is the case for whites, it's not so for blacks or Hispanics.

Whites appear to be fired up about heading to the polls next month. Non-whites, not so much. Lest we forget what the electoral map would look like if only whites could vote:

Rather than the story being how Trump lost because he was unable to mobilize enough politically apathetic white voters, it could instead be how Hillary lost because she was woefully unable to match the electoral enthusiasm among NAMs that Obama generated in the last two elections. While overall turnout was down 6% in 2016 compared to 2008, black turnout fell 11%, or twice as much as non-black turnout did (there isn't sufficient exit polling data to calculate Hispanic turnout).

A modest suggestion for Trump: Drop the "what do you have to lose?" pitch to blacks. Hillary's using it repeatedly to prod uninterested blacks into taking an interest in the campaign. Pointing out that things have been bad for blacks will cause blacks to reflexively feel like Obama is being attacked, and black racial solidarity will translate that into an urge to make the effort to vote for Hillary on behalf of Obama. Follow the Derb's advice instead and just don't do race.